Latest Entries »

TRIVIA 0042: US VS. CHINA: WHO MATTERS MORE?

No Free Lunch

US vs China: Who matters more?

By: Cielito F. Habito

@inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer

12:10 AM September 13th, 2016

SOME WORRY that our outspoken President may be unnecessarily antagonizing the United States for our country’s own good, while sounding deliberately gentle with China—in the name of pursuing an “independent foreign policy.” This piece’s title notwithstanding, I am not about to argue here that we must choose one over the other. It’s fair to say that historically, both of them have helped us, and wronged us as well. In the overall scheme of things, it may not be obvious who has been and who will prospectively be the better friend or worse foe to us Filipinos. It has been argued that our independence would be best asserted by being on good terms with everyone. Indeed, it would be in our best interest as a small country to be seen as impartial in dealing with other countries, particularly the world powers, and in defining our country’s standing in the global community.

Still, I thought it might be interesting to assess and compare the nature of our economic linkages with the two countries, as this looms large in any reckoning of our relationships with either of them. I will steer clear of the political and other dimensions of those relationships, as that would be straying beyond my own area of expertise. On economic relations, the most obvious measures for which we have the data are those pertaining to trade, investments, and overseas remittances.

How important are the United States and China to us as trading partners? Overall, it would appear that they are equally important, as combined exports and imports with each are both in the neighborhood of 13 percent of our total for all countries. The United States is more important to us as an export market, accounting for 15 percent of our total exports in value terms, against China’s 10.9 percent. As source of imports, the reverse is true, with our official figures showing less of our imports (10.8 percent) coming from the United States than from China (16.2 percent). The latter figure is likely to be even higher, given the rampant smuggling of goods into the country, particularly from China. Recently it was reported that China’s data on exports to us are 60 percent higher than our corresponding data on imports from it, indicating the extent of such undocumented imports.

What do we sell to the two countries? Dominating our exports to both (50 percent of our exports to China, and 39 percent to the United States) are electronic products, mostly in the form of intermediate products such as semiconductors and circuit boards. For China, mineral ores are also prominent (14.5 percent), with shiploads of virtual raw earth, mostly nickel ores, being shipped there every week. Rounding up our top five exports to China are chemicals, miscellaneous manufactures and machinery/equipment. For the United States, garments are our second top export (14 percent), followed by coconut oil, miscellaneous manufactures, and ignition wiring sets for motor vehicles. These give us some idea on which industries—hence which types of workers—benefit from our trade with either country, and correspondingly, who would be adversely affected by a cutback in trade, as fallout from possible political conflict. Offhand, it appears that proportionately more workers benefit from our exports to the United States than to China, with labor-intensive manufactures more prominent in our top five exports to the former.

What do we buy from the two countries? Topping our imports from both are electronic products in the form of basic components for further assembly and finished consumer products. These comprise nearly half (48.2 percent) of total imports from the United States against less than a fifth (19.3 percent) from China. Agricultural products in the form of animal feed stuffs, cereals and preparations (including flour), and other food and live animals are prominent imports from the United States, along with industrial machinery and equipment. From China, our other top imports are iron and steel, industrial machinery and equipment, miscellaneous manufactures, and metal products.

As source of foreign direct investments (FDI), the United States is far more important to us than China, accounting for 13 percent of total net FDI inflows in 2015, against China’s negligible 0.01 percent (less than $1 million). In 2014, only 2 percent of total Chinese investments into Asean reportedly went to the Philippines. Chinese Ambassador Zhao Jianhua is reported to have acknowledged that the Philippines invests more in China than China does in the Philippines. Its most visible investments here are in power, shipping and mining. The Chinese government owns a 40-percent stake in the National Grid Corp. of the Philippines, and is also reported to have acquired a controlling stake in Negros Navigation Corp. operating the 2GO Travel lines.

A recent article in the Journal of Political Risk lists some 25 Chinese mining firms known to have investments in the country as of 2012, albeit not officially recorded. It cites investigative media reports portraying Chinese mining companies to be engaged in “improper” and “less than legal” mining operations in the country. On the other hand, US investments in the country have a long history and are much more substantial and varied, spanning the agriculture, industry and services sectors.

As for remittances, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas data report that nearly half (43 percent) comes from the United States, and less than 1 percent from China. It would seem from all this that on purely economic terms, we stand to lose more from antagonizing the Americans than the Chinese. But as we’ve stated at the outset, it’s best not to antagonize either. Whether in trade, investments or remittances, we need both—and we need much more.

* * *

cielito.habito@gmail.com

CASE 2016-0058: THELMA RODRIGUEZ, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND VS. SPOUSES JAIME SIOSON (G.R. NO. 199180, 27 JULY 2016, REYES J.) (SUBJECT/S: WHAT IS CONTRACT TO SELL; DOUBLE SALE; CONJUGAL PROPERTY) (BRIEF TITLE: RODRIGUEZ VS. SIOSON)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision dated May 26, 2011 and Resolution dated October 21, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94867 are AFFIRMED.

 

SO ORDERED”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

NERI AND THELMA EXECUTED TWO DEEDS OF SALE OVER A PARCEL OF LAND FOR AN AGREED PRICE. BUT THELMA  ONLY PAID PARTIAL. THEN NERI SOLD THE LAND TO SIOSON. WAS THERE DOUBLE SALE?

 

NO. BECAUSE THE CONTRACT EXECUTED BY NERI AND THELMA WAS MERELY A CONTRACT TO SELL.

 

BUT THE CONTRACT WAS TERMED DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE. IS THIS NOT EVIDENCE OF SALE?

 

NO.

 

THE REAL CHARACTER OF THE CONTRACT IS NOT THE TITLE GIVEN, BUT THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES.

 

WHAT IS A CONTRACT TO SELL?

 

IT IS A “BILATERAL CONTRACT WHEREBY THE PROSPECTIVE SELLER, WHILE EXPRESSLY RESERVING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY DESPITE DELIVERY THEREOF TO THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER, BINDS HIMSELF TO SELL THE PROPERTY EXCLUSIVELY TO THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER UPON FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITION AGREED UPON, I.E., THE FULL PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE.”

 

SUPPOSE THERE WERE TWO DEEDS OF SALE OVER SAME PROPERTY WHAT IS THE RULE?

 

IF THE PROPERTY IS MOVABLE PROPERTY THE  THE OWNERSHIP SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE PERSON WHO MAY HAVE FIRST TAKEN POSSESSION THEREOF IN GOOD FAITH.

 

IF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, THE OWNERSHIP SHALL BELONG TO THE PERSON ACQUIRING IT WHO IN GOOD FAITH FIRST RECORDED IT IN THE REGISTRY OF PROPERTY.

 

SHOULD THERE BE NO INSCRIPTION, THE OWNERSHIP SHALL PERTAIN TO THE PERSON WHO IN GOOD FAITH WAS FIRST IN THE POSSESSION; AND, IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF, TO THE PERSON WHO PRESENTS THE OLDEST TITLE, PROVIDED THERE IS GOOD FAITH.

 

THE DEED OF SALE WAS NOT SIGNED BY VIOLETA, SPOUSE OF NERI. CA SAID THE DEED OF SALE TO THELMA COULD NOT HAVE BEEN VALID. IS CA CORRENT?

 

NO.

 

THIS IS DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

 

FIRST, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, LOT 398-A, IS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF “NERI DELOS REYES, MARRIED TO VIOLETA LACUATA,” AND SO WAS ITS MOTHER LOT, LOT 398.

 

IN METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY V. TAN,47 IT WAS HELD THAT SUCH FORM OF REGISTRATION IS DETERMINATIVE OF THE PROPERTY’S NATURE AS PARAPHEMAL. THAT THE ONLY IMPORT OF THE TITLE IS THAT NERI IS THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IT BEING REGISTERED IN HIS NAME ALONE, AND THAT HE IS MARRIED TO VIOLETA;

 

AND SECOND, THE RECORD IS BEREFT OF PROOF THAT SAID PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED DURING NERI AND VIOLETA’S MARRIAGE -SUCH THAT, THE PRESUMPTION UNDER ARTICLE 116 OF THE FAMILY CODE THAT PROPERTIES ACQUIRED DURING THE MARRIAGE ARE PRESUMED TO BE CONJUGAL CANNOT APPLY.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

 scd-2016-0058-thelma-rodriguez

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

 

CASE 2016-0057: RE: LETTER OF COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE VICENTE S.E. VELOSO FOR ENTITLEMENT TO LONGEVITY PAY FOR HIS SERVICES AS COMMISSION MEMBER III OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (A.M. NO. 12-8-07-CA); RE: COMPUTATION OF LONGEVITY PAY OF COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE ANGELITA A. GACUTAN (A.M. NO. 12-9-5-SC)RE: REQUEST OF COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE REMEDIOS A. SALAZARFERNANDO THAT HER SERVICES AS MTC JUDGE AND AS COMELEC COMMISSIONER BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF HER JUDICIAL SERVICE AND INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION/ADJUSTMENT OF HER LONGEVITY PAY. (A.M. NO. 13-02-07-SC) (26  JULY 2016, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO J.) (SUBJECT/S: LONGEVITY PAY)


DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to GRANT the Motion for Reconsideration of CA Justice Gacutan and MODIFY the Resolution dated June 16, 2015 in A.M. Nos. 12-8-07-CA, 12-9-5-SC, and 13w02·07-SC, insofar as to GRANT CA Justice Gacutan’s request that her services as NLRC Commissioner be included in the computation of her longevity pay, but reckoned only from August 26, 2006, when Republic Act No. 9347 took effect.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT IS MEANT BY CONTEMPORANEOUS CONSTRUCTION?

 

IT IS THE INTERPRETATION OR CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON THE STATUTE BY AN EXECUTIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CALLED UPON TO EXECUTE OR ADMINISTER THE STATUTE.

 

IT INCLUDES THE CONSTRUCTION BY THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF LEGAL ADVISER OF THE GOVERNMENT.

 

CERTAIN LAWS  GRANT TO CERTAIN OFFICIALS OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT THE RANK AND SALARY OF A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY. MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY ENJOY LONGEVITY PAY. DO THOSE CERTAIN OFFICIALS ALSO ENJOY LONGEVITY PAY?

 

YES.

 

THIS WAS THE INTERPRETATION OF THE JUSTICE SECRETARY.

 

THE RULE IS THAT COURTS SHOULD RESPECT THE CONTEMPORANEOUS CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON A STATUTE BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERS WHOSE DUTY IS TO ENFORCE IT, AND UNLESS SUCH INTERPRETATION IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS WILL ORDINARILY BE CONTROLLED THEREBY.

 

IN THE CASE OF JUDGES, WHAT LAW DEFINES LONGEVITY AS PART OF SALARY?

 

SECTION 42 OF BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129 CLEARLY STATES THAT THE LONGEVITY PAY IS “ADDED” TO THE BASIC MONTHLY SALARY AND FORMS PART OF THE “TOTAL SALARY” OF A JUDGE OR JUSTICE.

 

THUS, THE SALARY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY REFERS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE BASIC PAY PLUS THE. LONGEVITY PAY TO WHICH THEY MAY BE ENTITLED BY VIRTUE OF THEIR CONTINUOUS, EFFICIENT, AND MERITORIOUS SERVICE IN THE JUDICIARY.

 

WHY WOULD LONGEVITY PAY BE ALSO PART OF SALARY IN THE CASE OF THOSE IN THE EXECUTIVE WHICH BY LAW ARE GIVEN THE EQUIVALENT RANK AND SALARY OF THOSE IN THE JUDICIARY?

 

BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT CONGRESS INTENDED IT. THE PERTINENT LAWS GRANTING THESE OFFICERS IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT THE SAME RANKS AS THOSE IN THE JUDICIARY DO NOT DISTINGUISH SALARY WITH LONGEVITY PAY AND SALARY WITHOUT LONGEVITY PAY.


TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2016-0057-VELOSO

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.